Yeah, let's forget the incredibly important news about reddit and other internet sites being controlled directly by the NSA being censored on here countless times. This place is turning worse every day.

I like how the article doesn't offer any evidence about his guilt. No text messages, no daughters or anyone's testimony, no pictures of the bruises from the supposed beating, no anything really. Maybe those will be presented at trial but since they are not in the article, how are we supposed to trust a brutal murderers word with no evidence?

Alternate article: Woman admits to committing premeditated murder and brutally torturing a married family man she has admitted to being sexually attracted to. As her legal defense she has stated that she was having a consensual affair with him but he borrowed money from her that he didn't return, didn't leave his wife for her, tried to extort her, beat her and raped her. No evidence has yet been presented of his supposed crimes except the murderers word, the trial will be held on "insert date" and will perhaps present more evidence from which this case can be judged.

Ex-Journalist here: A lot of the info you're asking for wouldn't be available to the press. Most evidence gets some kind of a publication ban as it's being considered in court, and they're very particular about what you are and are not allowed to say about a case due to privacy and wanting to keep the hearing as objective as possible. Sexual assault cases are hard to report on in most countries, because they basically just lock it down to protect the victim from further trauma. Additionally, the people involved have rights to privacy. If you were beat by someone, you'd probably be feeling a bit ashamed and embarrassed and not wanting to put yourself on display like that for the whole world.

What they have done to cover their asses is the use of this very magical word: allegedly. As long as you toss that word in there, you're scott free from libel charges usually.

Edit: Which is not saying I'm picking a side or justifying anything, I'm just explaining why that info wouldn't be available to the average lay person.

I will add that in Hong Kong, operating under a system based on English Common Law, once a case is under way the only things you are theoretically* allowed to report about a trial sub judice are the things that are said in public court. The newspaper is trying to be as sensationalist as possible but can only use what's been heard in court, which is presumably the initial prosecution allegations, and the case for the defence.

In US reporting, the DA and police seem to release a lot of information to the press to support their case. That isn't allowed under ECL.

*Newspapers flout this a lot, but (again theoretically) they get in trouble for it.

Regardless of his guilt, she straight-up murdered the dude. All it does is provide a motive for the murder. It wasn't self defense. She drugged him, chopped his dick off, and when he woke up she beat him to death with a fucking hammer.

All this article serves is to provide the motive and a character assassination of the guy she killed. In the civilized world, we have laws. When someone commits a crime, you're supposed to let the police deal with it. Hong Kong isn't the wild west and she's lucky she's not being tried in the mainland where she's from.

A similar incident happened in Africa, only it was a mob who "necklaced" someone. When the story was posted on reddit, there were a lot of "I don't support torture, but", "I'm usually against vigilante justice, but", and other comments from the r/justiceporn crowd.

An update to the story occurred a few days later. Turns out they got the wrong guy.

One of the rather important aspects of Due Process is providing that pause so emotions can cool off and people can think deeply about the situation so we don't punish the wrong person. Indeed, the more heinous the crime the more patient and rigorous you ought to be.

There is this attitude where as long as you're horrified enough by an act, then literally any reaction is acceptable, and that if anyone tells you that you're responding from emotion and not from reason, you can just say, "What? How dare you criticize my bloodthirst! You're pretty much saying you endorse rape!"

And it's ridiculous. You can both be disgusted and horrified by the crime of rape (or any crime for that matter) and still think that the rule of law and the justice system should prevail in all cases. We shouldn't champion (let alone condone or look the other way on) vigilantism, no matter how much a particular crime might offend us.

Hypothetical question. Be honest. If you had a 12 year old daughter that was beaten raped and disfigured and left for dead in a ditch but survived and you had the chance to kill the person with no repercussions. Would you?

Yes I would. I a heartbeat. Probably torture the bastard too. Doesn't make it right. I should still be tried for murder and locked up in jail as a murderer.

Also your confusing what I said apparently. All I said is you can't justify murder because of rape. Sure any father would kill the person that did that to your daughter (Prisoners is a great example of how far ordinary people would go), but it doesn't make them any less of a murderer than someone who shoots their neighbor for driving on their grass. Obviously the person killing because of the rape has a better reason, but premeditated murder is still premeditated murder.

Now if I happened to come upon said raper raping my daughter and I killed him to defend her, then yes that would be excusable, because I'm defending someone who is in the act of being attacked

but it doesn't make them any less of a murderer than someone who shoots their neighbor for driving on their grass.

But in the eyes of the law it can. The legal system is not black and white, with good reason - one of these murders is a hell of a lot more understandable than another. Our legal system reflects this in the fact that you can get greatly varied sentences for mitigating or aggravating circumstances when the core crime is the same.

I don't condone murder but at the same time I don't pretend that every extralegal action is equally bad.

I think you're thinking of crimes of passion, like shooting a guy when you walk in on him with your wife. I don't think a "crime of passion" implies if you're plotting the person's death well after the fact.

From a utilitarian standpoint, a father who snaps under extreme duress and kills the rapist of his daughter is far less likely to be danger in the future to peaceful members of the society around him than is a man who just kills a person for personal gain or for fun. If the point of law is to maintain an orderly, peaceful society and maintain as much happiness of the citizenry as possible within those limitations, it's perfectly reasonable to allow the condition of extreme duress to be a mitigating circumstance for the sentencing of a murder.

A lot of people are not against vigilantism if it is beyond and reasonable doubt that the person did the crime. I am one of those people. However, this is not one of those cases. There is reasonable doubt.

Law does not equal justice. There is a massive departure between them. Law is simply a tool to enforce the social contract, and it often fails in that. Justice is a separate concept tied to morality.

No, your definitions of those things does not equal one another. Morality and justice are completely subjective terms. Was cutting his dick off and killing him just or moral? You might say one thing, I might say another, and we can argue about it until the cows come home and not get a definitive answer because those concepts are defined how we chose to define them.

Some people do say that law is justice. Some say that law is morality. Some say that neither justice nor morality are truly possible in this world and some say that they are inherent concrete things.

I don't really see that the article is a "character assassination" of the guy. It merely reports what she did, and then reports her stated reason for doing so. What do you think they should have reported? It's no more a character assassination of him than it is of her.

That's why you don't get caught. If someone raped, tortured, and murdered my 5 year old daughter I wouldn't care about the rules other people made, I would force him to experience pain only few had ever known. Obviously we can't have people exacting revenge all over the place, it's barbaric. At the same time, I would feel I was obligated and entitled to restore balance. What is the right choice? I think maybe compromise and allow the family members of the victim execute the guilty. I've made my nonpoint.

The article is more of a story of what happened, not a trial. Most articles about incidents outside of the US that I've seen are like that. Just as it doesn't include specific evidence, it doesn't say that there is no evidence. So nice job just assuming she's a liar, and nice double standard.

We should always trust a killer when they say something about the person they've killed. Wait, no, let me make it more equal and polite and proper and stuff. We should always trust a woman when she says something about a man she has killed--no questions asked. To be safe, we should slander the victim if possible, and accuse him of things without evidence, even after he has been murdered. It is inconceivable that a woman could commit murder of her own volition, out of the cruelty and meanness of her heart, against an innocent man. No. The only explanation is that he pushed her to it.

How is it? He's ranting about how a news outlet should provide corroborating evidence for a breaking news story. I don't know what world you and he inhabit, but in the real world allegations get published all the time. It's called an evolving news story. If her allegations get disproved in future, then it will be reported, if her allegations are found to be legitimate, it will be reported.

I find something strange: "...then “forcibly had sex with her”, the High Court heard, according to the newspaper. Afterwards, she drugged him with soup laced with sleeping pills" Did she make the soup afterwards? Did she went to get the sleeping pills after the rape all the time he was just chilling there? In all that time no one heard noise, called the police or checked on the apartment? I worry people have their view of reality so twisted by the immense amount of fiction on TV that someone might do a terrible thing and make up a soap opera story afterwards.

Notice the article has a "humorous" picture of a woman holding scissors. If the situation was reversed and it was a guy who stabbed some woman's twat if they used a pic of a males hands holding scissors. Regardless of the fact the guy was a rapist.

To be fair, this kinda story: man gets dick cut off (and/or murdered), is pretty commonly ignored and even laughed about by our society. This is just one more example to these people. I think everyone deserves a fair trial and nobody deserves to be laughed at for having one's dick cut off by a crazy ex, but somehow we as a culture have gotten on the wrong side of justice by having people presumed guilty and lacking basic empathy for men who have been mutilated without cause.

Actually I think they care about a guy being murdered before he was proven guilty (even then, the death penalty for non-fatal crimes in the US is kind of looked down upon, and the death penalty in the UK is banned afaik, so I'm not sure why anybody wouldn't be bothered by this anyways.)

Hello fancy seeing you here. But shockingly, I agree with you. This was an extreme response to a rape and happens very often considering China is not great at convicting rapists or even sending them to trial. This is a symptom of a faulty system. It's still really terrible what she did though. However, to assume she's lying about the rape is also gross.

NOoooooo!! Haha I got le banned from femra :p I let myself get pissed off :(

However, to assume she's lying about the rape is also gross.

I agree. If there are any MRAs who would argue against that, ask them how they feel about male rapes being ignored - if they don't change their tunes fast, pm me their names, I'll go kick their asses IRL :p

I imagine that SRS will get in on the action when they learn that the top-voted posts here right now are basically saying "the accusation isn't the same thing as any evidence of his guilt, especially since the accusation only came after she murdered him."

The real fun is going to be the cross- and counter-brigading from SRS and men's rights.

A Chinese woman chopped off her former boyfriend’s penis with scissors and then killed him with a hammer after he raped her, a Hong Kong court heard, according to a report Tuesday.

Ugh, did they have to put the "a... court heard" at the end of the sentence. This article implies his guilt in the first twenty words. If you were skimming, you'd think it was self defense of something crazy. If he's innocent, that's a really messed up article.

no evidence at the trial (that MAN was a rapist): First degree murder. Capital punishment.some evidence at the trial: First degree murder. 20 years in prisonoverwhelming evidence at the trial: aggravated manslaughter. 5-10 years in prison.

Before I finished reading the entire headline I prefilled hammer with penis and was like how fucking humiliating is that! Guys gets his dick cut off then gets beaten to death with it. It must have been a big penis in order to have the weight and mass to bludgeon someone. Then a split second later I read that she killed him with a hammer. All that ran through my head in a split second. Da fuck brain...

This is really sleazy slipshod reporting. And the image used with the story is truly irresponsible. This does not belong in news. It's little more than sensational gossip mongering, traffic bait with an outrageous headline. Consider the source.

Well, regardless of what actually happened here, something we will likely never know (also who knows if the tabloid paper exaggerated or made this whole story up to begin with)... but anyway...if someone raped you, you would probably be pretty upset too...

I'm 100% against rape and have no sympathy whatsoever for rapists, but I agree that what this woman did was wrong. If you are afraid of being raped, you should do what it takes to get yourself out of the dangerous situation and nothing more. That may involve attacking the rapist in self-defense, but it would hardly require drugging him, cutting off his penis, and beating him to death with a hammer. Those actions go way beyond self-defense and are not excusable.

If he did beat and rape her as she claims then he deserved everything he got in my book. He's no longer around to defend the accusations though, and for all we know he could have been completely innocent. It takes a pretty spiteful kinda person to chop someones dick off, however extreme the provocation. Beat him to death in fear of your child's life, your own, or being raped, then I think anyone could understand, even applaud, those actions. Allow me, however, to play devils advocate; the woman (41) had had an affair with the married 32 year old piano teacher for years. Perhaps even a kind, gentle man. He told her he still had feelings for his wife and was ending the affair, and in a fit of raging jealousy she went psycho. She then drugged him, chopped his penis off and proceeded to batter him to death with a hammer. All that is known for sure is that the last part is true. Anyone callous enough to chop off someones dick is capable of lying in court. I'd just prefer to know a bit more about each of their characters before damning him to hell.

In the US cases, especially capital murder, are usually long and drawn out. The case could last years with a good defense lawyer drawing it out. Even in an apparently open and shut case they would try to do this to get the DA to offer plea bargains.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!? Are you trying to be level-headed and reasonable? Tis no time for such crazy talk... didn't you get the notice that you can never question anything about any women's claims regarding rape unless she's claiming that someone wasn't raped...because we all know she's been brainwashed by the patriarchy into treating men and women as equals in front of the law?

You should join us in the witchhunt! It's quite the hoot! unless_you're_accused